A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory"

I've read this thread from one end to the other but I still have to see exactly what it is you are defending?Since there are so many variatons to what is called the "Gap Theory" could you state in clear terms what it is you mean by the Construction/Reconstruction Theory.Thanx

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Sorry about the blunder with "Destruction / Reconstruction" Well, I would like to know how you, according to this theory, stand in relation to Adam and Eves' immortality, before the fall, as well as the purpose of the trees of knowledge and life in the context of the Genesis account?It also goes without saying that death already exists by the time of the reconstruction in this context. How do you account for this if mainstream interpretation says the opposite?

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

It is true that God gives us eternal life as we put our faith in him and his word. Yet there is also a common misunderstanding in todays mainstream church that we achieve this eternal life by being faithful christians. The bible actually states that this eternal life is through the tree of life alone and our access to this tree is what we are striving for in our daily christian lives.Here are some interesting verses that show exactly this concept: Revelation 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. Revelation 22:2
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.Revelation 22:14
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.So it is apparent that this very same tree of life that was in the Garden of Eden is what gave Adam and Eve their immortality, nothing else. Death as we know it already existed in creation right from the word go (that includes the so called pre-Adamite world).That is a proven scientific fact. The oldest fossil on record is 2.1 billion years old. That sort of makes this particular topic moot since what we are talking about refers at most to the last 300 000 years. Another aspect is that for man to have dominion, he would have to have been able to procreate before the fall since that is the message inherent in the verse. Thus all life as such would also have had this ability. Think what would soon happen if there was procreation without death.As such we can see that mans immortality was a special condition provided by an outside source, the TREE OF LIFE.Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."To argue the opposite would undermine the Gap Theory itself. What you seem to be implying is that the tree of life is a metaphor and not a real thing that existed in the garden and continues to exist in heaven (paradise). What evidence in Genesis (or the Bible for that matter)?Does one need to be told to eat and live? No
One needs to be told what not to eat so that one might continue to live.------------------------------------------------------------------ It doesn't say that death entered the world, it says that sin entered the world and thus brought death as a consequence.It is a consequence of sin or in this case of Adam and Eves', Disobedience to Gods' Law. This death mentioned in the above verse has 2 components one is spiritual and the other is physical. Both are related with one another.
The spiritual death, (separation from the presence of God) is what God is referring to specifically, the physical death is a consequence of the spiritual death since Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden.--------------------------------------------------------------It seems that you concentrate alot on the this pre-Adamite world but it's existence is secondary to the central theme of the Gap Theory.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

I agree totally with what you said in your post yet, there are some items that where not clear to me.Although one cannot seperate the the Bible into individual independent parts since all of the Word has a bearing on all other Scripture, we can draw parallels between New Testament and Old Testament verses to explain what each mean in light of one another.You did this quite well likening Christ to the Tree of Life.It isn't necessary to go into detail about what you said since I agree with it all as a Christian. We all know that the Old Testament is the Shadow of the New. What is literal in the Old is shaped into existence in the New Testament in a different light.We understand what the Old was trying to tell us through figures and symbols in the light of the New Testament.Yet the fact remains that if we believe the Word as we have it, to be true and not some figure of speech then it follows that the events happened exactly as described in Genesis.As such there was actually a Garden of Eden, there were two Trees there. What exactly happened to them and why does the bible speak of them in the verses I quoted?You spoke at length on those verses and gave explanations on them, all of which, I actually agree with, yet not once did you actually say that there was (and is) a Tree of Life in the context I put forward.To say that one believes in this Theory yet is incapable of accepting the fact that death was a part of life for Creation before the Fall is a contradiction I find interesting.The modern church has never explained the true context of the two Trees in detail since it confuses people because what is preached is that Jesus is the one that gives us eternal life through faith and repentance.To add the true context of the trees would confuse many. Thus we find contradiction where there is none due to a lack of clarity in the way the church communicates its interpretation of these events. (Shortcuts are bad in the Long run.)One cannot stick their head in a box and not see the evidence of this fact even if you don't want to bring science into the thread.The most we can say about Adam and Eves' immortality is what the Bible actually states about it in Genesis itself and that I've already written down in my previous post. They were immortal because of the Tree of Life. Whether we like it or not, that is what Genesis says, loud and quite clearly.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Sorry it's taken so long to reply but availability is a precious commodity. That's not true at all, just the direction you are heading with your interpretation that I don't agree with. Aside from that, your quotes and their scriptural application was spot on. The ark of the covenant was not just a piece of furniture it really did hold the essence of God within it. It wasn't just representative of him, as you are implying. As you can see it wasn't just relating to it that brought blessings or curses but it was the living emodiment of God in that time. No-one struck those people except God himself.Sometimes we look so much at interpreting and extrapolating that the simple and straighforward is often forgotten.This also applies to what you said in most of your post in relation to the Tree of Life, not detracting one bit from the fact that you interpreted those verses well. (Just not completely, leaving out the easy and straightforward approach)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ So that you don't have to go looking here are the verses I mentioned. Revelation 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. Revelation 22:2
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.Revelation 22:14
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.Again, not detracting from your interpretation please note that God uses the term "Tree of life" and no other, in Revelation, where a more straightforward and easier term could have been used to denote Jesus gift of Eternal life. So that leads me to think that interpreting should be done a little more literally than you have been doing. Since if you are correct, people would Know at this time (at the writing of Revelation) where the gift of Eternal life comes from.(if not from a physical tree)I never aked where the tree of life was, I asked what happened to it?The answer is that it is where the Bible says it is, in Heaven waiting for us. How do I know this?
Look at the above verses without trying to put a figurative spin on them.As for the Garden of Eden, it is irrelevant where it actually was since it doesn't exist as such anymore. And no I'm not searching for the fountain of eternal youth as you put it, since the Tree is in heaven, as I said, it's a no brainer that if one wants access to it there is only one way... Through Jesus._______________________________________________________________________________________________ Let's take the classical approach to the events in question:Man is eternal because he was made in the living image of God and since one is eternal the other must be so as well.
God gives man the task of dominating the earth.
Man falls when he disobeys God and is expelled into the wastes of the earth to toil and sweat until he dies. i.e. death comes into existence because of the fall of man.Problem: Scientific evidence which is incontrovertible states that the earth is older than any possible interpretation of the bible text as shown by fossil evidence, thus how can we reconcile these two apparent and inflexible views?The Gap Theory does so with ease but is problematic in one aspect.You have to find a way around romans 5:12, since that is what people mainly use to urgue that there was no death before the fall. I argued before that this verse is being manipulated to say what it doesn't say. Romans 5:12-14
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.This only speaks of death coming due to sin, so it is a consequence of sin. It also speaks of death coming to all men because of Adam. It doesn't say that death came to creation as everybody interprets it.There is also the practical aspect to look at and that is that man and animals could give birth to offspring at this time (be fruitful and multiply). Given time there would have been no space for any living thing on earth and bacteria that decompose organics would not even exist.So to all intents and purposes death was around and in evidence before the fall just not for man who was immortal because of the Tree of Life (the bible says so). To say the opposite is to ignore the biblical evidence as well as scientific evidence.That is what I find interesting when faced with these contradictions._______________________________________________________________________________________________How can I demonstrate this in a clearer way?When God created man, He did so in his image. 1. He shaped the body from the dust of the earth.
2. He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.Two conditions were needed for mans creation. One physical the other spiritual.Both aspects of man had an ingredient of Gods life only together do they become LIFE as Adam knew it.Both needed nourishment to continue to live. Food for the physical and Gods' presence for the Spiritual. When Adam and Eve disobeyed Gods' order to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in essence they died an immediate death, A spiritual death. This is reflected in thier underlying need to clothe themselves. They noticed the abandonment of Gods' Spirit. When they were expelled from the Garden of Eden and thus refused access to the Tree of Life they were left to die a physical death. A reflection of the spiritual death that had already taken place.So we see a difference between death coming to man and death already in evidence in the rest of creation.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Greetings Jaywill,The apparent discrepancy between our differing interpretations of what the ark really meant (or was) to the believers of that time period is a reflection of the overall disagreement regarding the Tree of Life among other things, it is one of intent. Although we are looking at the same verses we are reading them differently.If I understand you correctly, we can resume your argument according to what you wrote in your last post. So you're basically saying that God only acted in accordance to the way people acted toward those objects. If they acted in faith they were blessed, if they acted with irreverence God acted on that as well, thus the object itself had no power, it was merely a symbol that God used according to his will. Please correct me if my interpretation of what you are saying is in error.You further used the verses I provided to back up your answer, YET... it seems that you don't see the contradiction in your statement. Tell me, do you know why Uzzah put his hand on the ark?It seems that a man who is only trying to steady the ark after the oxen that were pulling the cart stumbled is not commiting a sin of irreverence before God or is he?He was trying to protect something of value to him and his people. The only thing that was wrong was that he wasn't a consecrated priest, the only ones who could touch the ark. So he died, but no sin was commited by him, was it.What did his attitude have to do with the action that God took "in accordance to the way people acted toward those objects."?That one's easy, nothing. The presence of the ark brought blessings or curses through the hand of God since in many ways the ark was the symbol of the physical presence of God among his people. That is also why it was placed int the Holy of Holies in the Temple. There it was even regarded as the Throne of God, since it had what was called the mercy seat which no one ever sat on.Am I saying that the ark was magical without God in the equation?
Of course not, but one must ask if a physical symbol of the presence of God was also not imbued with that very presence. When God ordered its' construction was He not also giving the people a part of his presence? The order to build the ark didn't come from a man but from God himself. What does that tell you about it being just a mere symbol?As for your statements: They say that Irony is the darkest form of comedy, I am laughing.Lets not put words in my mouth, ok? As for the continuance of this particular subject, it is out of context to the general topic and should be discussed elswhere.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm going out on a limb here but I think you mistook the meaning or the verse for another.The word "signs" doesn't appear in Rev. 1:1. I take it that you interpret "signs" as indications or events. As you can see by the KJV version that signs actually means in this context "stamp of approval" or "communicated". It's not even in the plural it is in the singular as it refers directly to the angel God sent to John.Please refer to: BibleGateway.com for more versions.This sort of eliminates your argument based on this word since you are not interpreting it correctly. There are no "SIGNS" there are clear events which we then have to interpret in context.If some of these events are contextually metaphorical then that is how they should be read. If they are clear events then why insist that they are metaphorical just because you don't undersand them in their context.One of the 1st things we learn in school in English Lit. is to interpret passages within their context. It is a baseline that prevents error and misunderstanding. Something is only a metaphor or an allegory when the context clearly shows this to be the case. Yes there will be a representation of all nations in heaven as well as people of all colours.Let us imagine for a moment that I am in heaven at the moment, witnessing the event described above. Do I stop being Portuguese by birth just because I'm in heaven, does my friend next to me stop being black or Indian just because he is in heaven? NO!Do I stop being a man and the women behind me a woman just because we are in heaven? NoThe difference is in the fact that these distinctions no longer matter, not that they no longer exist. You, I think may have a problem with that. I don't. If that is what the bible says who am I to argue against the word. I'll see for myself when I get there. Again I think you should look up in the greek what "signs" actually means in the context you are putting forward. these events are literal, whether you like that answer or not. The interpretation of the events themselves in the context of our present day society is the hard part. Do I really need to answer that? PLEASE!!! Did you see anywhere in my posts the affirmation that everything in the bible is literal and that there are no metaphors or allegories in it? Don't push an issue to it's limit just to try prove the unprovable. Just follow the simple rules of Literature Interpertation. Yes I agree, but then again I'm not a New Believer as you imply. Revelation 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.Revelation 22:2
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.Revelation 22:14
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.Please note that in each and everyverse provided there is a location mentioned:"paradise of God", "middle of the great street of the city", "through the gates into the city", "tree of life and in the holy city". Am I missing something here or are you? Are we discussing semantics? Think about what I've been saying in the context I've been talking about and look at the above verse. Do I contradict it at all?Jesus is the way we use to get to the Father who provides eternal life, implicitely Jesus is the provider of that life (albeit indirectly). I never said otherwise but please note that Jesus also implies that he is at most a doorway we must use for our redemption.
That was after all his mission and purpose.What then is the meaning of life in the conrext I put forward. Just because I'm saying that the Tree of life is the source of eternal life for humans in the Holy City (Heaven), doesn't detract from the fact that Jesus is also the source of our eternal life (again indirectly) since he is the redeemer of our sins and thus the true and only way to come to the Father and the source of eternal life.God Bless.Edited by Jor-el, : grammatical errors found in some paragraphs

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

In my time as a christian I've come across almost every forseeble and many times unforseeble explanation and theory for almost all parts of the bible. From Genesis to Revelation, I've heard everything that can possibly be used to undermine belief in the Bible, if not in the existence of God.Now I'm not saying that this is what I've read in your posts Archer Opterix and Arachnophilia but it cuts pretty close to the dividing line.I've had a few conversations with Arachnophilia, enough to know that he believes in God and that he is a christian and we've disagreed in a few points especially when metaphors come into play. As for your beliefs I wouldn't presume to guess.There is just one thing that really surprises me and that is that this is a Theological defense of the Gap Theory. In other words, according to the bible can we prove that one possible interpretation of the Genisis account "The Gap Theoery" is plausible. It is not do discuss whether Genesis is a metaphor or not. We are taking for granted that the bible is "God's word" for all intents and purposes, and that these events are fact as expounded by that very word.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Tell me, have you read the thread from the beginning or did you just come for a quick visit?If you had started from the beginning you would have seen that we are not using scientific evidence in this thread, your arguments have to be based on biblical verses and interpretation.That is also the reason why this thread is under: Social and Religious Issues Bible Study A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory".This discussion is based solely on the bible from the standpoint that the bible is the classicaly established authority on these issues as is underestood in mainstream christianity. If you have an argument with that then you shouldn't be in the Bible study forum.If you actually have something to contribute within the defined rules of this forum please feel free to do so.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

The above post goes for you too!!

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Hi RAZD,Nah I'm not defensive just a little irked. I had a thread on this subject in Science Forums Origin of Life The Gap Theory Examined. Since it was in the wrong forum it was kind of sliced and diced, since we were arguing theology and there was only a smattering of science. The reason given was that we were off-topic. Now I find this one and it seems that off topic doesn't matter anymore.’Any subject needs to be argued from a logical and rational point of view, without that there can be no discussion because of all the distraction and irrelevence given to the ambience of said discussion.1. Yes I am arguing from an OE standpoint
2. Yes the bible is not metaphorical, in other words yes there was a Creation by God as shown in Genesis.
3. The argument is how can we justify the existence of said theory (Gap Theory)when the bible is not clear on the subject.
4. Yes I take for granted the scientific evidence in geology as well as biology is correct as far as we can tell with alot of unknowns and guesswork tying it all up in a nice little bundle.When I look at the words "bible study" then that is what I think is meant within the context of this particular thread.Using the bible, can I make a case for the GAP THEORY that can stand a biblical approach as well clearly satisfying many of the open questions that science put on the Genesis account?That's what I'll find out.So in this instance this is not about each persons faith and how they interpret it, it is about using the bible as you would use scientific analysis to substantiate a theory.Does this answer your post or have I left anything out?

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

I would agree with you if I was actually in a literature class sudying the bible under those guidelines.But, since in this case the object of said study is the basis we must use in a theological discussion to prove a specific point, it stands to reason that the argument is not about the merit or demerit of the bible as a work of literature hence Art, but the use of the bible as a way to prove a hypothesis concerning its inherent interpretation regardless of whether you actually believe said bible is the word of God or not. That is, in my understanding, what "Bible Study" is all about.The argument about Gen 1:1 as well as the following verses related to creation in general including the creation of Adam and Eve and their expulsion is what this particular thread is about from what jaywill posted as a guideline.Just for nitpickings' sake why did you put a comma after earth in your bible verse? It pretty much defeats your argument doesn't it?
Since commas and verse numbers don't exist in the copies of the so-called originals we have. There is alot to be said for looking at multiple translations which I do, as well as the original hebrew and chaldee texts.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Hi Archer OpterixI would agree with you if I was actually in a literature class sudying the bible under those guidelines.But, since in this case the object of said study is the basis we must use in a theological discussion to prove a specific point, it stands to reason that the argument is not about the merit or demerit of the bible as a work of literature hence Art, but the use of the bible as a way to prove a hypothesis concerning its inherent interpretation regardless of whether you actually believe said bible is the word of God or not. That is, in my understanding, what "Bible Study" is all about.The argument about Gen 1:1 as well as the following verses related to creation in general including the creation of Adam and Eve and their expulsion is what this particular thread is about from what jaywill posted as a guideline.Just for nitpickings' sake why did you put a comma after earth in your bible verse? It pretty much defeats your argument doesn't it?
Since commas and verse numbers don't exist in the copies of the so-called originals we have. There is alot to be said for looking at multiple translations which I do, as well as the original hebrew and chaldee texts.Edited by Jor-el, : Sorry about the double post, could an admin take care of this error on my part please.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Hi Archer Opterix, Who's reality, yours or mine?That's a prtetty vague affirmation considering that it is neither here nor there. What point are you trying to make? Be clear because I tend not to see the indirect quips as well as others. Don't beat around the bush.In my case truth is coloured by many facets of my life, from my beliefs to my social background as well as my politics among many others. All of these tend to curve what we learn in what I might call a lense of perspective. As you very well know you hav one as well.Pure truth can only be found in the word of God. I'm sure you will laugh at that but that in the end should be the "be all" and "end all" for all christians.Did he not say: seek the truth and it will set you free? Yet what you don't understand is that THIS work of "art" as you put it is also a book with a specific application in mind:To know the will of God and to apply his word in our lives. In other words it's a manual for living a Godly life. No matter how "artistically" it was rendered it doesn't stop being what it is in it's essence, a book with a purpose.This reminds me of a story about a man who had a priceless collection of paintings by the greatest artists of all times, in his desire to be a collector among collectors he added to his collection continuously.He had a vault built to gaurd his masterpieces and filled it from top to bottom. One day he meets another collector and they start talking. The visitor asked the collector how much time he passed admiring the works in his collection.The collector answered that he had a great love for art but just never had the time to spend admiring those masterpieces he bought because he was always looking for new pieces to add to his collection.Poor guy he didn't appreciate what he had in his hands because he was always looking for more art.Maybe you shouldn't consider the Bible so much a work of art or Literature but as the manual that teaches you to know God and His will for your life. Interesting that you should say that, you seem to consistently miss the fact that the Bible is there to be used by us for just such a purpose. It is our (christian) operating manual.When you want to know how something works, you don't ask the neighbour if you've got the manual in your hands!Here are a few different versions of the same Verse you provided:Genesis 1:1-2
New International Version (NIV)Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.Footnotes:Genesis 1:2 Or possibly becameNew International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------New American Standard Bible (NASB)Genesis 1
The Creation
1(A)In the beginning (B)God (C)created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was [a.](D)formless and void, and (E)darkness was over the surface of the deep, and (F)the Spirit of God (G)was [b.]moving over the surface of the waters.Footnotes:Genesis 1:2 Or a waste and emptiness
Genesis 1:2 Or hoveringCross references:
Genesis 1:1 : Ps 102:25; Is 40:21; John 1:1, 2; Heb 1:10
Genesis 1:1 : Ps 89:11; 90:2; Acts 17:24; Rom 1:20; Heb 11:3
Genesis 1:1 : Job 38:4; Is 42:5; 45:18; Rev 4:11
Genesis 1:2 : Jer 4:23
Genesis 1:2 : Job 38:9
Genesis 1:2 : Ps 104:30; Is 40:13, 14
Genesis 1:2 : Deut 32:11; Is 31:5New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------American Standard Version (ASV)Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.American Standard Version (ASV)
Copyright © 1901 Public Domain--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------New King James Version (NKJV)Genesis 1
The History of Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.Footnotes:Genesis 1:2 Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic.New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Young's Literal Translation (YLT)Genesis 1
1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,Young's Literal Translation (YLT)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would like you to note that I provided current translations that are the most popular of the translations available. (All except the last which I included since it is unique among the tranlations as the most literal of them all. It is also similar to the NRSV edition you provided.)What also needs to be taken into account is the number of people involved in each translation as well as their essential background as scholars "modern or conservative".After some deliberation I doubt that you can throw away the translations I provided as erroneous.When we clear this little hurdle then we can start talking on whether the Gap Theory Hypothesis is without merit. according to the guidelines of the "Bible study" forum.To make your life easier check these sites out:
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Hi Archer Opterix, I never said that you could not considetr the writings of the Bible a work of art. It is that and much more. It does have every type of element used in Literature in it, from geneologies to histories of nations,it even has Fables.If you analyse a work of literature, which I'm sure most have done at one time or another; some of the works of Shakespeare continue to be required study in schools; we see that authors use many elements in their writings to convey an ideal or an emotion. The Bible is no exception to that. I don't place the bible on pedestal as I have seen some do, but I do use it with a purpose. It is a tool of study for wisdom and knowledge, a path to fellowship with God and understanding of his will and character.As you say and I agree, one should use the correct book for the correct task.To get my wife in the mood I certainly wouldn't read a bike manual or even the geneological line of Adam, but I might use the Song of Songs by Solomon. It was after all written for that purpose (among others).I do not deny the use of Language and writing as an art form in the bible but that after all, is the least of its' qualities.Edited by Jor-el, : Spelling errors corrected.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.